nanaimo73 wrote: Solzrules- Have you seen any breakdown for the $6+ billion, how much for the new line, rebuiding the old line, locomotives, cars, shops, the Winona barge terminal, ect ?
Solzrules-
Have you seen any breakdown for the $6+ billion, how much for the new line, rebuiding the old line, locomotives, cars, shops, the Winona barge terminal, ect ?
Is the Winona barge terminal part of the project?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Just a couple of things I found poking around on DME's website:
DME says the total cost of the project is 6 billion. Refer to the bottom of page 3 of the .pdf file link here:
http://www.dmerail.com/PRB/DME%20Rail%20Upgrade%20Background.pdf
They also make the claim that in the 30 year history of the FRA loan program there has never been an instance of a loss to the taxpayers. One could assume that if the total project cost is 6 billion and the FRA loan application is for 2.5 billion then the private sector must be providing the remaining 3.5 billion.
From the STB descision in 1998 p. 849:
"...278 miles of new lines envisioned for the project is 532 million."
"The rebuilding and upgrading portion of the project .............would cost approximately 876 million."
STB 1998 p. 898
"DME explains that it's plan assumes the use of a 'Communication Based Train Control' (CBTC) system to manage its train operations. However, DME notes that it would also be able to operate efficiently with a standardized Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) system and bases its operating and investment cost projections on this type of signal system."
Nowhere in the STB descision did I see any mention of a proposed barge terminal at Winona. There is a proposed connection with the Union Pacific, Canadian Pacific, and the I & M ( I think DME wound up buying the I&M, didn't they?) at Winona, however.
So why the big difference in the numbers presented in the STB descision and the numbers being tossed around now? Keep in mind if you add together all the numbers from the STB proposal it doesn't come anywhere near 6 billion. I would postulate the following:
The numbers given by the DME to the STB in 1998 did not inlcude any additional construction required by the subsequent enviromental impact studies. Both the numbers for new construction and the upgrade of the existing line have also increased due to labor and material increases since the time of the original proposal.
Nowhere did I find in the STB document any discussion about additional equipment purchases, although early in the text the DME did say it intended to run 135 car unit coal trains. These would be powered by 6000hp locos disbursed throughout the train. (This is close to the STB phrasing). Again, the antiquated ex-Milwaukee Road SD 40-2's from the 70's would not be capable of power this kind of tonnage, so I think we could assume that it is in the works for the DME to be buying some new power.
DME would also need to purchase or lease the cars to supply enough trains to haul the anticipated 60 million tons in the first full year of operations. DME anticipates that for every year after the first year they will haul an additional 10 million tons of coal, enventually reaching 100 million tons annually. I don't know how many set of 135 car coal trains this would require, but I think you can start to see why the cost submitted to the STB is much lower than the total project cost.
All of the info I am getting here is off of the STB's website. If you are REALLY bored (I am on a paid leave this week, I don't actually make a point of reading all of this stuff on a regular basis) you can check it out for yourself. WARNING! The .pdf file from the STB is quite large so if you are on the dial-up connection you may want to make a pot of coffee before double-clicking......
Enjoy!
http://www.stb.dot.gov/boundvolumes3.nsf/b466c97893ec3be08525680b006041bd/2717ec778886367785256b61007fc6a4/$FILE/Volume3-37.pdf
nanaimo73 wrote: futuremodal wrote: ...but at least BNSF is honest enough to publicly oppose the project (which only puts them further into the pit of anti-American/anti-Capitalist excess.) BNSF hauls Chinese imports to put money in the pockets of their shareholders. That makes them pro-capitalist. Anti-capitalist would be wanting to nationalize the US rail system, even if it is to lease it out to open access operators.
futuremodal wrote: ...but at least BNSF is honest enough to publicly oppose the project (which only puts them further into the pit of anti-American/anti-Capitalist excess.)
...but at least BNSF is honest enough to publicly oppose the project (which only puts them further into the pit of anti-American/anti-Capitalist excess.)
BNSF hauls Chinese imports to put money in the pockets of their shareholders. That makes them pro-capitalist. Anti-capitalist would be wanting to nationalize the US rail system, even if it is to lease it out to open access operators.
There's really not much difference between a nationalized rail system and a privately integrated, permanently franchised rail system. It's like the metaphorical difference between communism and facism - the former is government controlled, the latter is government sanctioned, but either way the peons get screwed in the end.
More to the point, it is expressly anti-capitalist to try and use non market forces to shut down a potential competitor. If BNSF was truly a pro-capitialists company, they would welcome the DM&E competitors into the field so they could beat them on the market field of play, you know, provide better rates and services to the customers than DM&E. That is the heart and soul of capitalism. Then if DM&E does go belly up because they just can't compete with BNSF, BNSF probably gets first crack at operating over DM&E's new track.
Your last sentence doesn't make sense - are you saying that an increase in the number of rail service providers is anti-capitalist?
Murphy Siding wrote: (Dave- I can't honestly tell from your post, if you're being serious or humorous with your **Oh yeah?? So's your mother !!** type post, or, are you trying to have an honest discussion?)
(Dave- I can't honestly tell from your post, if you're being serious or humorous with your **Oh yeah?? So's your mother !!** type post, or, are you trying to have an honest discussion?)
Let me state for the record that I have NEVER EVER said anything degrading about someone's mother........
......, frankly because I assume some of these ilks were spawned sans an actual mother.
Murphy Siding wrote: Should this whole thing somehow not work out, Uncle Sam has first dibbs on any money to recoup the $2.5B. That would leave the other investors of the $3.5B with.....whatever is left?
TheAntiGates wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Should this whole thing somehow not work out, Uncle Sam has first dibbs on any money to recoup the $2.5B. That would leave the other investors of the $3.5B with.....whatever is left? Most of the rest of your post I agree with, but with respect to the above I have another feeling entirely.If the Gov'ts loan for $2.5B goes for track work, and the private investor's $3.5B goes for Locomotives and rolling stock, (just trying to keep the conversation simple) then I think that the respective transactions would be seperate. DM&E would likely create another entity to shield the loco and rolling stock loan from the physical plant indebtedness. even if it was that entity that leased the locos and rolling stock to the DM&E.The loco's and rolling stock would be pledged as collateral on their seperate loan, and the land, track, and infastructure pledged on the other. Meaning of course, if the entire operation does go belly up, with deferred maintenance always being the refuge of a failing railroad, what the taxpayers will gain through receivership is a worn out plant that couldn't even support itself when it was in goodshape.
I agree with you are saying. It's never been quite clear (to me at least), if the $2.5B covers just the tracks and ROW (?) However, the thought of a DM&E Central is not good.
TheAntiGates wrote:I'm probably too cynical, but to me it looks like the folks behind the entire ordeal have everything to gain if the whole deal works out, and almost nothing to lose, if it doesn't (the insulation of corporate entities, etc.Makes me wonder if the head honcho's of DM&E would be enthusiastic about signing personal guarantees on the loan, in the even the corporation defaulted?Not that their personal resources could hope to cover the risk, but just to see if their enthusiasm remained, if their own necks were on the block.Theoretically they COULD make a handsome profit for 5 years, and then step away and leave the taxpayer holding the bag. And there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it.
Theoretically they could do that, yes. Is that a good reason to deny the loan? I don't think so. Anyone who takes out a loan could burn the money for fun and then just declare bankruptcy - really it isn't that bad, right? That's why the banks scrutinize everything so closely to estimate risk, and I am sure that the FRA is doing this right now in the DME matter.
Banks are in the business of lending money. They charge interest on the loans. The greater the risk, the higher the interest rate. Banks accept secondary positions on loans all the time. Their risk is thus a bit greater than it would be if they had "first dibs" and so their interest rate is higher.
If you have a mortgage on your house and then you take out an equity loan or a second mortgage, and then you default and stop paying both lenders, the holder of the first mortgage gets the house first and the other lender has to hope there is some money left in it after the first guy is paid off.
If you have a mortgage on your house, and you take out a bank loan for your car, the two lenders each have their own collateral if you stop paying your debts. One gets the house and one gets the car. The house lender seldom gets the car and the car lender seldom gets the house.
Banks have been lending money to railroads since the beginning of time, especially for the rolling stock. At one point in history it was by a form of document called a Trust Agreement and you could see a plaque on the side of the New York Central locomotive that said the bank owned the loco pursuant to the Trust Agreement dated such and such - or whatever the terms called for.
Banks are not likely to lend money for locomotives and cars if the rail and roadbed are in really bad shape and especially if the track isn't even there yet. Thus the DM&E needs the FRA loan to build new track and upgrade old before the banks will lend money for rolling stock, or anything else.
Banks don't make any money if they don't take a few risks and make loans - some of which are likely to not get paid, which is why they have funds set aside to cover those possible bad loans.
DM&E's website refers to the FRA loan as a loan. http://www.dmerail.com/News/Myths%20and%20Facts.pdf. It does so several times. I urge everyone to go to that site and read it.
solzrules wrote: Theoretically they could do that, yes. Is that a good reason to deny the loan? I don't think so.
Theoretically they could do that, yes. Is that a good reason to deny the loan? I don't think so.
TheAntiGates wrote: solzrules wrote: Theoretically they could do that, yes. Is that a good reason to deny the loan? I don't think so. No, I don't think I said that it was. But it DOES justify a certain degree of alarmism spawning from the secretive nature of the loan application.Again, if they are not doing anything wrong, have nothing to hide, then why all the secrecy? Theoretically, they could have influence with people inside the FRA who might be willing to rubberstamp the approval process in exchange for "intangible consideration", which is all the more justification for some form of neutral oversight.Your serve
And why would they need to make that information public? Does the bank make all of your financial information public so the talking heads can scrutinize it when you ask for a loan? And who would provide neutral oversight on the government? The courts? Democrats? The AntiGates? What business is it of theirs?
solzrules wrote:And why would they need to make that information public? Does the bank make all of your financial information public so the talking heads can scrutinize it when you ask for a loan? And who would provide neutral oversight on the government? The courts? Democrats? The AntiGates? What business is it of theirs?
TheAntiGates wrote: solzrules wrote: And why would they need to make that information public? Does the bank make all of your financial information public so the talking heads can scrutinize it when you ask for a loan? And who would provide neutral oversight on the government? The courts? Democrats? The AntiGates? What business is it of theirs? I don't borrow money from the "public", and if I did I am sure every tidbit of the proceedings would be both part of the public record as well as "discoverable" by any entity having an acute interest.It is US taxpayer money being put on the line here. But, why not a compromise solution? why not an independant review committee, that way all the irrelevant skeletons in DM&E's closet can be kept confidential, with just relevant information pertaining to the ability to repay the loan made public?Might be interesting to see which politico's DM&E has made campaign contributions to, over tha past 5 years. Is there any reason why you think THAT information should be suppressed as well? ???
solzrules wrote: And why would they need to make that information public? Does the bank make all of your financial information public so the talking heads can scrutinize it when you ask for a loan? And who would provide neutral oversight on the government? The courts? Democrats? The AntiGates? What business is it of theirs?
AG,
You and your conspiracy theories - it is not apt for this forum.
All corporations have sensitive internal information that is not germaine to public scrutiny. I'm sure BNSF and UP have some secrets they hope never get out, does that disqualify them for the federal money they have recieved in the past, are recieving now, and will recieve in the future?
If so, I'm sure AG will be the first to demand full public accounting of all such internal data from the Big Two western railroads. Because for AG to continue to rant about a DM&E conspiracy theory while ignoring the BNSF and UP conspiracies would make AG a big fat hypocrite, wouldn't it?
Murphy Siding wrote: (Not a conspiracy theory-just a question. )
futuremodal wrote:AG, You and your conspiracy theories - it is not apt for this forum. All corporations have sensitive internal information that is not germaine to public scrutiny.
All corporations have sensitive internal information that is not germaine to public scrutiny.
futuremodal wrote: If BNSF was truly a pro-capitialists company, they would welcome the DM&E competitors into the field so they could beat them on the market field of play, you know, provide better rates and services to the customers than DM&E. That is the heart and soul of capitalism. Then if DM&E does go belly up because they just can't compete with BNSF, BNSF probably gets first crack at operating over DM&E's new track.
If BNSF was truly a pro-capitialists company, they would welcome the DM&E competitors into the field so they could beat them on the market field of play, you know, provide better rates and services to the customers than DM&E. That is the heart and soul of capitalism. Then if DM&E does go belly up because they just can't compete with BNSF, BNSF probably gets first crack at operating over DM&E's new track.
Under this reasoning, most companys would be anti-capitialists. I am sure McDonalds would love it if Wendys was not around, United would be happy is Southwest had not been formed, and EMD would be gitty if GE still just made lightbulbs. To say BNSF is any different in that matter is nuts.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
futuremodal wrote: AG, You and your conspiracy theories - it is not apt for this forum.
Now if that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I do not know what is.
n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: AG, You and your conspiracy theories - it is not apt for this forum. Now if that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I do not know what is. Bert
Hi Bert! We're trying to have a discussion about this, without turning this thread into one of the other 400 or so other flame-a-thon threads. If that's not an option, can you do us a favor, please, and skip over this thread? Thanks.
Hi Murph,
I really want to straighten our favorite spud out on capitalism, could you let us know when we can wreck your thread ?
As for the topic at hand, the coal cars should be owned by the utilities, as they are elsewhere, and the locomotives by leasing companies. Neither should account for the mystery $4 billion. Trackwork only amounts to one third of the project ? Perhaps DME is planning on buying KCS or CP to reach more power plants.
TheAntiGates wrote:Arthur Anderson was given credit for being a neutral party until the muck around Enron got so deep that it pulled AA into the undertow.
Now there's a can of worms that is better left unopened, at least in this venue. But you are right in saying "was given credit for being a neutral party" because that was the general perception, based on the company's (previously) sterling reputation.
But while Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling got most of the headlines, Arthur Andersen & Co. was not without accountability (pun intended).
nanaimo73 wrote: Hi Murph, I really want to straighten our favorite spud out on capitalism, could you let us know when we can wreck your thread ? As for the topic at hand, the coal cars should be owned by the utilities, as they are elsewhere, and the locomotives by leasing companies. Neither should account for the mystery $4 billion. Trackwork only amounts to one third of the project ? Perhaps DME is planning on buying KCS or CP to reach more power plants.
Well......I am trying to keep the thread sort of on track.
In one of the many links I read up on, there are references to some foreign ownership intersest in DM&E, that "supposedly" is being kept hush-hush. ( I note that the reference calls them "unsubstantiated".) I thought to myself what a hoot it would be, if the Chinese were the foreign investors!
Murphy Siding wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: Hi Murph, I really want to straighten our favorite spud out on capitalism, could you let us know when we can wreck your thread ? As for the topic at hand, the coal cars should be owned by the utilities, as they are elsewhere, and the locomotives by leasing companies. Neither should account for the mystery $4 billion. Trackwork only amounts to one third of the project ? Perhaps DME is planning on buying KCS or CP to reach more power plants. Well......I am trying to keep the thread sort of on track. In one of the many links I read up on, there are references to some foreign ownership intersest in DM&E, that "supposedly" is being kept hush-hush. ( I note that the reference calls them "unsubstantiated".) I thought to myself what a hoot it would be, if the Chinese were the foreign investors!
Whoah! Foreign as in another country or foreign as in another company?
solzrules wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: Hi Murph, I really want to straighten our favorite spud out on capitalism, could you let us know when we can wreck your thread ? As for the topic at hand, the coal cars should be owned by the utilities, as they are elsewhere, and the locomotives by leasing companies. Neither should account for the mystery $4 billion. Trackwork only amounts to one third of the project ? Perhaps DME is planning on buying KCS or CP to reach more power plants. Well......I am trying to keep the thread sort of on track. In one of the many links I read up on, there are references to some foreign ownership intersest in DM&E, that "supposedly" is being kept hush-hush. ( I note that the reference calls them "unsubstantiated".) I thought to myself what a hoot it would be, if the Chinese were the foreign investors! Whoah! Foreign as in another country or foreign as in another company?
I took the comment to mean a foreign company. It appeared just to be someone trying to plant some ugly seeds, as it was on an Anti-DM&E website. Something tells me the STB would have a real problem with another railroad "owning" DM&E.
Oh, okay, foreign company.......
I am sure that the STB would know about that through this entire loan approval process.....DME has to apply to the STB to form a rail company that would build the line, and I would assume that the company applying to the STB for permission to do that would have to reveal itself.
One thing that certainly would make for an interesting discussion - if this project is completed and a proven success how many class 1's would be knocking on the door to buy DME? Would the STB approve it? It would be ironic given that in the 80's CNW was trying to pull up the tracks. My how times have changed!
I don't borrow money from the "public", and if I did I am sure every tidbit of the proceedings would be both part of the public record as well as "discoverable" by any entity having an acute interest.It is US taxpayer money being put on the line here.
And so why should the government treat the DME any different than it did BNSF or UP when they made the same applications? It is also interesting to note that in the 30 year history of the FRA loan process that the DME is using not one dime of taxpayer dollars has been lost. There is no bank in the US that can claim that kind of a record. Banks make bad loans all the time, in part because they fail to research the applicants.
But, why not a compromise solution? why not an independant review committee, that way all the irrelevant skeletons in DM&E's closet can be kept confidential, with just relevant information pertaining to the ability to repay the loan made public?
The STB's decisions for the last 8 years ispublic domain. It is kinda boring to read, but they cover all the bases - fiscal solvency, construction plans, operating plans, traffic projections, proposed rail connections, enviromental inpact statements, DME's ability to pay back the loans, etc. What 'skeletons' do you think the rr is trying to hide? And how would an independent review committee be any different than the current FRA board looking at the loan application?
Might be interesting to see which politico's DM&E has made campaign contributions to, over tha past 5 years. Is there any reason why you think THAT information should be suppressed as well?
Sure I think that information should be confidential, but for idealogical reasons-not because of trains. Anyone that wishes to donate money to a political cause should have the right to do that, without fear of being 'outed'. I consider that a freedom of speech issue - I support who I want with my money, and that is no one else's business.
Not only that, if you are going to demand that the DME release campaign contribution info you better be fair and request that the Mayo clinic do the same thing. And you might as well go hole hog and demand that the city 'O Rochester and Olmsted County release the costs they are incurring fighting a rail line that has been in existence for over a hundred years. Some of their taxpayers may have an opinion or two in that arena.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Now there's a can of worms that is better left unopened, at least in this venue. But you are right in saying "was given credit for being a neutral party" because that was the general perception, based on the company's (previously) sterling reputation.
solzrules wrote:And so why should the government treat the DME any different than it did BNSF or UP when they made the same applications?
And so why should the government treat the DME any different than it did BNSF or UP when they made the same applications?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.